3 ms·
Ultimately, there is a balance to be struck. Labor and Capital need each other even though they have competing interests. But the proliferation of absurdly ex
by rectang 7y ago
Ultimately, there is a balance to be struck. Labor and Capital need each other even though they have competing interests.
But the proliferation of absurdly exploitative non-compete clauses illustrates just how far we are from that balance.
- mooreds 7y agoCapital seems to need to keep relearning the message that Ford got loud and clear: Labor (aka consumers) is what buys output.
- sokoloff 7y agoIn aggregate yes, of course. It doesn’t have to be their labor though. I spend about 0.05% of my pre-tax salary at my company. If they gave me a $10K raise, they would expect to see an extra $5 in revenue per year; hardly compelling.
- mooreds 7y agoSure, it's a tragedy of the commons. As a company I want to drive my labor costs down (all input costs, actually). But I want to be able to sell into a market where enough people have income (up to now typically from selling their labor) to buy my goods. The pool of consumers with disposable income is the commons that no one maintains.
- wolco 7y agoBut the goodwill muliplier effect when you tell your mom and she brags to her friends who then apply pressure on there kids to apply there because they pay well. Friends, social groups, churches.. now those people are more likely to buy.